"... I have precisely such a feeling (!), that the matter is not (!) in the points of accusation (!), but
'in general'...".

That is literally how it is written!! Well, can one reason in such a manner? After all, this means shutting the mouth of anyone who reasons and discusses. In the editorial letter, precise indications and formulations of disagreement are given, and you are seething: feeling, accusation, in general...

You read a report "on the same subject," and none of the Okhist literateurs "did not even hint at anarchism."

Again: is this an argument? There is no mention of anarchism in the editorial letter either. What exactly you said at the report cannot be established. That the Okhist literateurs are stupid - this is a fact. Yet you add: "I was pulling the wool over their eyes on other points"...

"Opportunism - to fear what the liquidationist-yellow Marya Alekseevna will say"
(Potresov).

Strong. Very strong. But it misses the mark! For I maintain that Potresov is right here against Bazarov 386.

(1) Is this true or not? You do not analyze it. - (2) Is it bad if the yellows are right against the errors of our people? You bypassed the substantive questions with strong words. It turns out that it is *you* who are "afraid" to think through the significance of Potresov's correctness against Bazarov!

"... You surely cannot attribute to me the negation of struggle for democracy..." I attribute to you a series of errors on this question and indicate precisely which ones. But you evade the substantive dispute.

You formulate three "assertions," allegedly "absolutely indisputable and orthodoxly Marxist," to which "the first chapter can be reduced."

But these assertions (1) are so general that they are still far from concrete reality; (2nd and principal) this is not what is said in the article!!

"Neither Gr., nor you even attempt to tell me, wherein lies the heresy."

Forgive me, this is not true. In the editorial letter this was stated with absolute precision, and you do not answer what we have said, what we have indicated. Not a sound in response to any of our many precise indications!!

One of our indications: you truncate quotations from Marx and Engels in such a way that the meaning is conveyed incorrectly or imprecise conclusions are permitted. You answer only on this point and how do you answer? That allegedly you "know perfectly well the continuation (of the quotations)." "But on these given points they held an opinion not subject to reinterpretation."

And that is that!! This would be laughable, if it were not sad. We point precisely at "reinterpretation"; you, without examining the argument, without citing a single quotation (I compared them on purpose; it was not in vain that I wrote to you; I compared more than one quotation!), wave it away:

"not subject to reinterpretation." The fault lies entirely on your side - instead of discussing disagreements, you wave them away.

Neither for "heresy" nor for "anarchism" were you accused on this account, but was written: "let it ripen." These are "two great differences." You not only do not answer our indications, but you distort their significance. This cannot be!

"The article lay for a long time..." This is already carping in hindsight. We corresponded with Gr. for a long time because we were distracted by other articles. You had not yet set deadlines, no one could have known of your possible departure. This is carping.

Regarding the "smashing" and polemic in an unabusive tone, I must say that I have not yet polemicized with you in print, but corresponded before the polemic and to avoid it. This is a fact. Facts are stubborn things*. Gossip will not overcome fact. I answer P. Kievsky for print (not you, but P. Kievsky), and give him a privilege which we have given to no one ever: we send him the article beforehand for his "agreement." (Unfortunately, the copyist fell ill in the middle of the work; because of this the article is not yet ready, and you, surely, will not see it before your departure; but there is mail to America, and P. Kievsky will surely forward it to you. We cannot take it away from this copyist and give it to another, because he is in another city; there is no other in sight; he is in need, and we cannot take away from him even the tiniest earnings, promised earlier.)

* - Facts are stubborn things. — Ed.